Case Brief Essay Example

Case Brief Essay example
MADDOX V. MONTGOMERY United States Courts of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit 718 F.2d 1033
(11th Cir. 1983) Facts:
Jimmy Maddox was convicted of rape in a Georgia state court and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Having unsuccessfully pursued his direct appeal and the state post–conviction remedy, Maddox filed
a federal habeas corpus petition alleging prosecutorial suppression of exculpatory evidence in
violation of the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Maddox had appealed the denial of habeas relief.
Decision of the Court:
The United States Court of appeals ruled that the suppressed evidence is purely impeaching
evidence and no defense request has been made, the suppressed evidence is material only if its
introduction probably would have resulted in acquittal. Given a minor role of Phillips' testimony and
the limited impact that Phelps statement had on the jury's assessment of Phillips credibility, Maddox
could not demonstrate that so the evidence probably would have resulted in an acquittal. Also, the
evidence was immaterial under United States V.Blasco; the defendant filed a joint motion to
suppress all physical evidence gathered by the officers and any statements made by the defendant.
The magistrate found that the defendant did not have to raise a fourth amendment challenge and its
suppression did not violate his (Maddox's) due process right. For ongoing reasons, the district
court's dismissal of Maddox's habeas petition was affirmed.
Reasoning of the Court:
The United States Court of Appeals first determined that Brady doctrine did not apply because the
Maddox defense team had not requested the information be disclosed. It was only after
unsuccessfully pursuing his direct appeal did he bring up this post–conviction habeas corpus
petition. In the United States v. Agurs the Court stated that such a failure to
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Maryland V. King Case Study
Case Briefing Maryland v. King
I. Facts
The Maryland DNA Collection Act (MDCA) gave the state and police officers permission to collect
DNA specimens from people who are detained for a violent crime, an attempt to conduct a violent
crime, breaking and entering, or attempted to break and enter. Police arrested Alonzo Jay King, Jr.
was on first and second assault charges. While he was under arrest before his sentence, King's DNA
was collected and documented in Maryland's DNA file. King's DNA to matched a rape case that was
never solved. This evidence was the only evidence that ties King to the rape. Furthermore, King
went to trial and the judge sentenced him to life in prison.
II. Procedure History
The Maryland Court of Appeals then reversed ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
V. Application/ Analysis
King appealed his case, stating that the Maryland DNA Collection Act violated the Fourth
Amendment, meaning he is secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. Maryland DNA
Collection Act is legitimate and the Fourth Amendment allows the police to have the right to draw
blood, and scrape underneath fingernails, and use a breathalyzer test for the lungs.
VI. Conclusion
The Court apprehended that conducting a DNA buccal test as a part of the arrest process and it does
not violate the Fourth Amendment because the test serves from a state that does not require a
warrant for a search. The Court apprehended that determining an arrestee's character and criminal
background is an essential part of the arrest process and that a DNA test is just as lawful as
fingerprinting. Determining a suspect's criminal background serves the legitimate state interest of
determining what level of risk the person positions in the community and what circumstances should
be established on his or her discharge from

Letter Of Intent : Eileen W. Norkunas
Facts: This case emerges from a sale of property in Baltimore City, due to the execution of the letter
of intent. Eileen W. Norkunas, the defendant, is the owner of a property known as 835 McHenry
Street, Baltimore, Maryland, and Rebecca Cochran, who is the plaintiff, along with Robert Cochran
and Robert and Hope Grove, were interested in buying her property. The Buyers, aided by a Real
estate agent, send a letter of intent to the Seller, indicating the terms for the offer. The Letter of
Intent stated the Buyers proposal to buy the property, and also specified that a standard Maryland
Realtors contract would be delivered to the Seller within 48 hours. The Letter also set forth the tax
information and the financing requirement ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Norkunas to settle the property with the Buyers, pursuant to the terms of contract within 60 days.
Mrs. Norkunas appealed on March 20, 2007 to the Court of Special appeals, stating that the Circuit
Court erred in determining the formation of an enforceable agreement between the parties. Issue:
Primarily, did the letter of intent specify the formation of a valid and enforceable contract? And was
the Maryland Realtors Contract enforceable and what would a reasonably prudent person,
understand from the meaning of the agreement? Holding/Judgement: The Court of Special Appeals,
reversed the Circuit Court, holding that the Letter of intent is not a binding contract between the
parties as it states, that the Buyers were to send the Maryland Realtors contract for the formation of
the contract and also that the Maryland Realtors Contract cannot be considered as a valid contract as
the Seller did not accept the contract. Court Reasoning: The Court of Special Appeals aimed at
determining whether, the party in whose favor judgement was entered is entitled to it as a matter of
contract law. However, the Court first, needs to ascertain if the Letter of Intent is enforceable or not,
that is, if it is a valid contract under the contract law of Maryland. The Petitioners claim that, since it
included offer and acceptance, supported by consideration, contained definite terms and was signed
by all

Hae's Murder Case Summary
Adnan and Jay are both guilty of Hae's murder, because they were engaged in criminal acts such as
smoking Marijuana, and they both lied and seemed suspicious in this case. Hangul 1980–1999, was
a Woodlawn High School senior in Baltimore, Maryland who disappeared on January 13, 1999. Her
body was found February 9, 1999, in Leakin Park, the victim of murder by manual strangulation.
Adnan Masud Syed, her ex–boyfriend, was convicted of first degree murder and was serving a life
sentence plus 30 years. Syed was granted a new trial in July 2016. Her murder initially generated
only local interest until it was the subject of the podcast Serial in 2014, which brought international
attention to Syed's trial.Hae Min Lee was born in South Korea in 1980 and emigrated with her
mother Youn Kim and her brother Leeto to the United States in 1992 to live with her grandparents.
Lee attended the magnet program at Woodlawn High School near Baltimore, Maryland. She was an
athlete ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
On February 9, 1999, Lee's body was found by a passerby in Leakin Park. On February 1, 1999, the
Baltimore County Police received an anonymous phone call suggesting that Lee's ex–boyfriend,
Adnan Masud Syed, was responsible for her murder, and that Syed had threatened to kill Lee On
February 3, Baltimore Police received call records for a cell phone belonging to Syed. They noticed
a number of calls on the day of Lee's disappearance to a woman named Jen Pusateri. When
questioned, Pusateri told police that a friend of hers, Jay Wilds, who had known Syed from high
school, told her that Syed had killed Lee. The police questioned Wilds, who told them that he had
helped Syed bury Lee's body and dispose of her car. Syed was arrested on February 28, 1999, and
charged with first degree murder. Officers also interviewed the man that discovered the victim's

Maryland versus Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003)
Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003) Citation: Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366; 124 S. Ct.
795; 157 L. Ed. 2d 769; 2003 U.S. LEXIS 9198 Facts Maryland police officers pulled a vehicle over
for speeding at approximately 3am on 7 August 1999. The police officers found three men in the
vehicle. The driver was Donte Partlow, the front seat passenger and defendant Joseph Pringle, and
the backseat passenger Otis Smith. One of the police officers asked the owner and driver of the
vehicle for his license and registration. When Partlow opened the glove box, the police officer
observed a large amount of money in the glove box. The police officer checked for outstanding
warrants and issued Partlow a warning. Then the officer asked for permission to search his vehicle.
Upon searching the vehicle the police officer found the money he had seen earlier as well as five
baggies of cocaine in–between the armrest and back seat. All three occupants in the vehicle were
questioned and denied any knowledge or ownership of the cocaine. Subsequently all three men were
arrested and brought back to the police station for questioning. Pringle waived his rights after being
given a Miranda warning and confessed that the cocaine was his and he intended to sell it. He
claimed that the other occupants in the vehicle had no knowledge of the drugs. At trial, Pringle
moved to suppress his confession, claiming that it was the result of an illegal arrest. The court
denied his motion, and

The United States : The Rights And Duties For Us Citizens
The United States (US) Constitution establishes the rights and duties for US Citizens and all
residents in the country. Regular issues mostly brought before courts are alleged violations of
citizens' rights. To some extent, it is confusing to determine whether a citizen's constitutional rights
have been violated or not; decisions may be appealed simply due to incomprehension. The First
Amendment granted freedom of religion, press, speech to every citizen, and established the secular
nature of country while prohibiting any religious discrimination in any state (Varone, 2012). For
example, it is difficult for employers to accommodate incompatible religious beliefs to work related
requirements without violating at a time citizens' rights and the US Constitution by undermining the
state of secularism. In Maryland, a lawsuit filed against a volunteer department for denying a citizen
a membership because of his religious beliefs was brought before a US district court in 1983 (Open
Jurist, 1994). The Case's facts, the issues, the rulings, the justification, personal opinion on the
ruling, emergency situation that this decision could be cited are the subjects of this essay. The Facts
Goldstein, the complainant, supposed that he was denied membership in the Chestnut Ridge
Volunteer Fire Department because of religious motives which were Judaism, and he filed suits
against the fire department before a US district court (Open Jurist, 1994). The fire company
requested the court to

Mcculloch V. Maryland
Introduction: The case McCulloch v. Maryland was one that began in the state of Maryland, and
eventually was decided upon at the national level, via the Supreme Court, in 1819. It would assert
national supremacy over that of state action in areas where the constitution granted forms of
authority.
The issue was brought to hand when the state of Maryland placed a tax on bank notes of the Second
Bank of the United States. National banks were instituted in every state throughout the country. The
reason that there was a Second Bank of the United States within Maryland because the First Bank of
the United States had closed down years prior. National banks provided individuals and state banks
with certain issues such as bank

Brady V. Maryland, 373 U.s. 83
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) This case came about because John Brady was convicted
and sentenced for the crime of murder along with another man, and it was found after the sentencing
that the prosecutor did not turn over a crucial piece of evidence to the defense which included a
confession by the other man. During the appeal process on behalf of Mr. Brady the "Court of
Appeals held that suppression of the evidence by the prosecution denied petitioner due process of
law and remanded the case for a retrial of the question of punishment, not the question of guilt. 226
Md. 422, 174 A.2d 167" (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015). By the prosecution withholding this piece of
evidence Mr. Brady was denied his Fourteenth Amendment right of due process. Because of this
case The Brady Rule was formed and that states;
"Brady material" or evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule includes any
evidence favorable to the accused–– evidence that goes towards negating a defendant 's guilt, that
would reduce a defendant 's potential sentence, or evidence going to the credibility of a witness"
(Cornell University Law School, 2015). This case showed prejudice on the behalf of the prosecution
because they withheld material evidence that could have changed the sentencing part of Mr. Brady's
trial. Mr. Brady was not innocent in his crimes but the prosecutor held back and did not disclose
ahead of time information on a confession and "due process requirements not only

Petitioner V. Kulbicki Case Study
the court case Maryland, Petitioner v. James Kulbicki, James Kulbicki fatally shot his 22–year–old–
mistress. Kulbicki shot his mistress on the weekend before he was scheduled for a hearing on unpaid
child support, which was tied into a paternity suit between Kulbicki and his mistress. At Kulbicki's
trial, which began in 1995, evidence was presented that the bullet removed from the head of
Kulbicki's mistress matched the bullet fragment that was left in Kulbicki's truck. FBI Agent Ernest
Peele, who represented the CBLA (Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis), presented this evidence.
Peele also examined a bullet taken from Kulbicki's gun. Even though the bullet in the victim's brain
was not an "exact" match to the bullet found in the gun, Peele assumed that the bullet from the gun
was similar enough to the first two bullets found. Using ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Kulbicki's file stayed in the state court until 2006, when Kulbicki added an additional claim that his
defense attorneys did not adequately question the legitimacy of the ballistics evidence presented by
the CBLA. Kulbucki lost in the state courts and then appealed to the Court of Appeals of Maryland.
The Court of Appeals then vacated Kulbucki's conviction based on the fact that Kulbucki's attorneys
did not question the legitimacy of the ballistics evidence, thus the defense attorneys did not provide
Kulbucki with effective assistance during the trial. However, the Supreme Court of the United States
held, in a per curiam opnion, that the Court of Appeals based the decision to vacate Kulbicki's
conviction on contemporary views of ballistic evidence. Since there was no reason for counsel to
investigate the validity of the ballistic evidence in 1995, the attorneys provided effective assistance
to Kulbicki because effective assistance did not require attorneys to verify the legitimacy of the
ballistic evidence (Maryland v. Kulbicki, 136 S. Ct. 2

Case Analysis : The Case Sub Judice
In the case sub judice, we are called upon to adopt one of two polarized positions by holding either
that this is one of the infrequent instances where a trial court has abused the discretion vested in it,
or, alternatively, we are asked to endorse the equally exceptional position that this is the first
"unusual and compelling circumstance" since the Court of Appeals adopted this articulation of the
rule in 1975. A. S. Abell Co., 274 Md. at 721. After weighing the considerations that are woven
through our authorities on this subject; namely, judicial economy, comity, and control of the
litigation; we hold that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Volkman's motion for
summary judgment. First, we recognize from the majority and dissent opinions in Waicker that the
argument for judicial economy often cuts both ways. See generally Waicker, 347 Md. 108. In this
case, however, the interests of judicial economy are best served by permitting this entire action to be
resolved in its original forum. Were it not for our probation of declaratory judgment actions while an
action involving similar issues was pending, "'almost any pending action could be interrupted and
held at bay until the determination, in one or more subsequently instituted declaratory judgment
actions, of issues culled out of the pending action.'" Id. at 429 (quoting Redmond v. Matthies, 180
A.2d 639, 642 (Conn. 1962)). The most efficient mean to resolve this litigation would be for the
entire

The Court Of Appeals Of Maryland
I: Case
The Court of Appeals of Maryland Number 69 September Term, 2012.
Glenn Joseph Raynor v. State of Maryland. Case number 12–K–08–001527. Argued: April 8, 2014.
Decided: August 27, 2014
II. Case Summary This appeal evolved out of a 2006 rape case that occurred in Harford county
Maryland. More than two years after the incident the victim identified Glenn Joseph Raynor, hereby
known as petitioner, as a possible suspect. After departing a voluntary police interview in which
petitioner ultimately declined a request for his DNA to be collected for comparison. Investigators
collected DNA on swabs from the armrest of his chair. DNA analysis revealed a match from samples
collected at the crime scene. After further investigation petitioner was charged and convicted of
first–degree rape and related offenses. Petitioner challenged his conviction based on Fourth
Amendment grounds contending that the collection and analysis of his DNA from the chair
constituted an unlawful search as it violated his expectation of privacy (Sternstein, 2014). According
to Raynor v. State 2014 to ascertain whether this conduct is a search under the Fourth Amendment
two conditions must be satisfied:
1) a defendant must demonstrate an actual subjective expectation of privacy in the item or place
searched and
2) Prove that the expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as objectively reasonable.
Upon appeal during oral arguments petitioner further specified it was not the

Case Citation : Maryland V. Pringle 540 U.s. Essay
Case Citation: Maryland v. Pringle 540 U.S. 366 (2003) Parties: The State of Maryland, Appellant /
Appellee, Joseph Jermaine Pringle / Plaintiff / Appellants Facts: August 7, 1999, a car occupied by
three men, Donte Partlow (driver and owner of vehicle) accused Pringle (front seat passenger), and
Otis Smith riding in the back seat, were ultimately pulled over by a police officer for driving over
the speed limit. Upon the officer approaching the vehicle, he asked to see Partlow's license and
registration, and as the defendant opened his glovebox, a fairly large sum of money was exposed in
the amount of $763. The officer then returned to his patrol car to check Parlow's license to ensure he
had no warrants of anything outstanding, Partlow came out clear, so he issued Partlow a verbal
warning. Upon arrival of the second officer he asked if they minded he search the vehicle, Partlow
had no issues and agreed to the search. The police not only found the $763 in the glove compartment
but also five glassine Baggies of cocaine stashed behind the backseat armrest. The officers
questioned the men as to who the cash and drugs belong too, none of them took ownership, the
officers advised them that if no one claim the drugs and cash as theirs, they all would be arrested
and charged. So, all three were arrested and taken to jail. Later on, in the morning Pringle decided
he would waived his Miranda rights, then made a full verbal and written admission that the cash and
drugs were his

The Case Marbury V. Madison
In the early years of the Republic, states came often in front of the Supreme Court to resolve
disputes of issue of the supremacy of the National Government. In 1803 the case Marbury v.
Madison held that Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role
of the Judicial System to interpret what the Constitution permits. The discrepancies between the
Federal Government and the States occurred often, as the States were not happy to give up their
power to the Federal Government. Late 1810 raised the issue of the financial stability of the states,
banks were comprehended as the symbol of power and privilege, and were despised by the vast
majority of the people. During the Anglo–American War in 1812, many banks collapsed under the
tough economic atmosphere. Survival Banks chartered by the states were also not in good position.
They lacked sufficient credit to support during the War–time and in the post–war situation also. In
1811, the charter of the First Bank of the United States has been expired, and the federal government
found itself not able to finance the war. In 1816, Congress accorded a charter to the Second Bank of
the United States and contributed with one–fifth of the bank's capital of $35 million. Before the
Federal Governemnt chartered the Second Bank of the United States, and before a single form of
currency was set, the state chartered banks had less government restrictions and were able to
speculate on their bank policies. They

Case Case Study : Bus 80
Ruben Medrano 08 October 2014 Professor Yang BUS 80 Case Brief Case Name: Norkunas v.
Cochran, 398 Md. 1; 919 A. 2d 700, Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2007. Facts: The case arose over
the prospective purchase of a residence in Baltimore, Maryland. Buyers Rebecca Cochran, Robert
Cochran, Hope Grove and Robert Grove sought to buy property from seller Eileen Norkunas. The
buyers presented to Ms. Norkunas a letter of intent where they specified that the two parties would
execute a standard Maryland Realtors contract to finalize the purchase. The parties signed the letter
of intent on March 7, 2004 and presented Ms. Norkunas a deposit check for $5,000. Shortly there
after, the seller received a contract and addenda to "effect the transaction". She signed the contract
and addends and signed most of the signature lines, but not all of them and crossed off certain
provisions she did not agree with. After not hearing from Ms. Norkunas for a week or so, the buyers
were notified that she was taking her property off the market. The buyers immediately sued the
seller for performance of the letter of intent she signed, which they felt entitled them to the property.
During the discovery process, they found out she not only crossed out provision which they would
have obliged to, but the fact that she signed the contract; they then sough performance for the
contact. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City granted summary judgment in the buyers' favor
because they saw an enforceable contract.

Charles Boblit Case Summary
Facts: John Brady (petitioner) and Charles Boblit were found guilty of first degree murder and
sentenced to death. Convictions were affirmed by the Court of Appeals in Maryland. Their trials
were processed separately. At Brady's trial, he took stand and maintained that he participated in the
preceding robbery, but not in the killing. At the sentencing, both men received the death penalty.
Brady's counsel conceded that Brady was guilty of murder in the first degree, and asking the jury to
return that verdict "without capital punishment. Prior to the trial counsel requested to examine
Boblit' s extra judicial statements. Several statements were shown to Petitioner's counsel; but the one
was dated on July 09, 1958, in which Boblit admitted the actual homicide, was ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
Petitioner's appeal from a denial of that motion was dismissed by the Court of Appeals without any
prejudice to relief under the Maryland. The petition for post– conviction relief was dismissed by the
trial court; and on appeal the Court of appeals held that suppression of the evidence by the
prosecution denied petitioner due process of law and remanded the case for a retrial of the question
of punishment, not the question of guilt. Ruling: The Supreme Court held that withholding evidence
violated the process where the evidence is crucial either to guilt or to punishment. The court also
determined that under Maryland state law the withheld evidence could not have exculpated the
defendant, but was material to the level of punishment he would be given. Relevance: Police officers
who becomes dishonest are sometimes referred to as "Brady cops". Because of the Brandy ruling,
prosecutors are required to nifty defendants and their attorneys whenever a law enforcement official
involved in their case has a confirmed record of knowingly lying in an official

Buencamino V. Noftsinger Case Study
In Arizona, the decision of the court regarding relocation of a minor child often requires the
application of Arizona Revised Statute 25–408 (I). The application of this statute depends upon two
factors being in place: a written agreement or court order regarding custody of the minor child, and
both parents currently residing in the state of Arizona. In Buencamino v. Noftsinger, the Arizona
Court of Appeals turned to the law to evaluate the trial court's ruling. A Brief History of the Case:
Buencamino v. Noftsinger: The Father (Appellant) and Mother (Appellee) had a child together in
2004. The parents were never married. The child lived at times with each of the parents separately,
and at other times with both parents together in the same

The Case Of Maryland V King
As technology advances, the world is forced to adapt as an increasingly quick pace. Specifically, our
justice system must consider the constitutionality of surveillance and other information gathering
techniques and how they coincide with current interpretations of the Fourth Amendment which
protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court addressed this
issue in the 2013 case of Maryland v King explicitly related to the legality of DNA collection of
individuals early in the booking process for serious crimes. In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court
ruled that pre–conviction DNA collection of those arrested for serious crimes is constitutional and
does not violate the Fourth Amendment; a decision that will ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Justices Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito
made up the majority of the court with the opinion founded upon the assertion that DNA testing is a
comparable method of identification to fingerprinting and photographing arrestees. Justice Anthony
Kennedy, wrote the opinion of the court, "sits at the court's ideological center and joins the court's
four–member liberal wing about a third of the time when it divides along partisan lines." As a
Republican, this makes him stand out as he actively resisted the kind of political polarization faced
by the court. Kennedy's swing vote is important in the consideration of our formal and informal
actors in the courts decision as he, and the other justices, are considered the formal actors.
DNA testing is the most accurate way to identify an individual, and should therefore be used to
increase the effectiveness of our justice system. This brings to light the issue of genetic privacy.
Society questions the motives of government in DNA collection and floods the media, which acts as
an informal actor on the court, with ideas of this invasion of privacy and encroachment of biological
liberties. The 2010 article, Create a National DNA Database? stated that "such sensitive information
is prone to misuse, and one should not have such blind faith in the security of government access to
it." EPIC, the electronic privacy

Essay On 4th Amendment
The 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution was introduced to Congress in 1789 by James
Madison, however it was not adopted until 1791, and is an extremely important amendment
contained in the Bill of Rights. "In the past forty years, the U.S. Supreme Court has increasingly
advanced the notion that the Fourth Amendment encompasses the common–law restrictions on
searches and seizures," (Mannheimer, M. Z., 2015, p.1, para.1). The Fourth Amendment requires
governmental searches to be conducted only when a search warrant is issued, sanctioned by
probable cause and supported by oath of affirmation, however, there are exceptions to this rule that
are stated in the "Exclusionary Rule," which was established in 1914. The "Exclusionary Rule"
states that there are certain instances, where a search can be conducted without a warrant, such as
probationary searches, plain view searches, exigent circumstance searches, border searches, and
consent ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This amendment is very broad, and it provides a wide range of protection for American citizens
(Wikipedia, n.d.). "There are two sides of the scale of an individual's Fourth Amendment rights.
First, a court should consider whether or not there was an intrusion into a party's rights, and then the
court should consider legitimate governmental interests, such as the safety of the public," (What
Does the Fourth Amendment Mean, n.d., p.1, para.1). The Fourth amendment has been challenged
multiple times, furthermore, there have been many cases taken to the United States Supreme Court,
regarding unreasonable searches and

Circuit Court Observation
In Maryland, there are 4 levels of court including district, circuit, court of special appeals, and court
of appeals. The lowest court is District court, most people experiencing court will be at this one.
This court deals with less serious crimes including traffic and boating violations, misdemeanors,
domestic violence, landlord disputes, and small claims. Circuit Court, which is the next lowest
court, generally handles more serious criminal cases, major civil cases, certain administrative
agencies, and domestic violence cases. The Court of special appeals, the intermediate appellate
court, sees any reviewable judgment, or other action of the circuit court. The court of appeals, the
highest court, hears cases involving the death penalty, legislative ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
In this observation, I observed circuit court.
In court, I observed an arraignment. An arraignment is an appearance in court to hear the charges
and to make a plea. Before they appeared at their arraignment they were supposed to go through the
steps of the criminal justice system. First, there was an investigation, an arrest, and booking. If the
suspect was a juvenile, they would go into the juvenile justice system. Next is the prosecution;
charging, initial appearance, preliminary hearing, and indictment or information. During charging,
the prosecution attorneys are the link between police and the court; they must decide if there is
reasonable cause to believe an offense was committed, they either are released or have an initial
appearance. At the initial appearance, they are brought before a judge, given a formal notice of
charges, advised of their rights, and given a chance to post bail. If not enough evidence has been
produced, the judge will dismiss the case and if there is enough evidence, they will move on to a
preliminary hearing. The preliminary hearing allows a judge to decide whether there is probable
cause

Mcculloch Vs Maryland
Cases of Federalism
McCulloch VS Maryland (1819)
In 1816, the state of Maryland enacted a tax that would force the United States Bank in Maryland to
pay taxes to the state. James W. McCulloch, a cashier for the Baltimore, Maryland Bank, was sued
for not complying with the Maryland state tax. McCulloch was sued for violating this Act.
McCulloch admitted he was not complying with the Maryland law. McCulloch lost in the Baltimore
County Court and that court's decision was affirmed by the Maryland Court of Appeals. The case
was then taken by writ of error to the United States Supreme Court (Supreme Court). In 1818, the
state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. McCulloch was convicted and
fined, but he appealed the decision. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
New York the Court rules that the protections of the 1st Amendment apply against actions by state
governments.
1942 – In Wickard v. Filburn, the Court rules that the federal government has the power to regulate
economic activity under the Constitution's Commerce Clause.
1972 – In Furman v. Georgia the Court rules that all existing death penalty laws violate the
Constitution. The Court cited "arbitrariness" and racial imbalances in the application of death
sentences. As a consequence, many states rewrite their death penalty laws.
1976 – Death penalty statutes are upheld generally by the Court's decision in Gregg v. Georgia.
1995 – In United States v. Lopez, the Court strikes down the Gun–Free School Zone Act of 1990 on
the grounds that the federal government invades reserved powers of the states with this legislation.
1997 – In Printz v. United States the Court strikes down the provision of the federal Brady Act
requiring states to check the background of handgun buyers.
2000 – The Court's unanimous decision in Reno v. Condon approves a federal law preventing states
from selling databases of personal information (the Driver's Privacy Protection Act) on the grounds
that this is proper federal regulation of interstate

DNA Evidence In Supreme Court Cases
In 2009, Alfonso Jay King, Jr. was arrested on serious assault charges. While King was in custody,
police collected his DNA by cotton swabbing his cheek. This was authorized by the Maryland DNA
Collection Act (MDCA), which permits police to obtain DNA samples from people arrested for, but
not yet convicted of, violent crimes. After his DNA was processed, King was connected to an
unsolved rape case from 2003 and convicted of rape. In the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the lower
court's decision was reversed because King's right against suspicionless searches outweighed the
identification purposes his DNA served in his 2009 case. Yet, the court maintained that the MDCA
was constitutional because there are scenarios where DNA would be necessary to identify but not
investigate an arrestee. Maryland then called for the Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court
decision and affirm the constitutionality of the MDCA. In previous cases, the collection of DNA
samples was ruled constitutional by state courts. For instance in the 2004 Maryland v. Raines case,
felon Charles Raines was forced to turn in his DNA test, linking him to a sexual assault case.
Maryland's Court of Appeals declared ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Maryland. Raynor was convicted of rape after the police swabbed his skin cells from an armrest of a
chair. Originally he agreed to take part in the police investigation but he refused to supply his
genetic information. So, when the police considered his DNA evidence, he argued that his Fourth
Amendment rights were violated. However, the court, with a 4–3 decision, decided that this
collection was constitutional and the police can collect any DNA evidence as they come across
them. Unfortunately, this case was denied of review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, DNA
collection laws exist in over half of the states and vary greatly on when DNA samples can be taken
and when the samples can be

Anacostia Riverkeeper
Maryland Department of the Environment v. Anacostia Riverkeeper Kelsey McRoberts Slippery
Rock University INTRODUCTION In 2013, Anacostia Riverkeeper, an organization devoted to
restoring the Anacostia River, challenged a permit issued in 2010 by the Maryland Department of
Environment (MDE). The MDE issued a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) permit to
Montgomery County, Maryland (Edwards, 2015). MS4 systems fall under the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations,
which require maximum controlled pollution in storm water (Maryland Department of the
Environment, 2015). The MS4 permit required the county to administer best management practices
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
(2015). Maryland Appellate Court: County Stormwater Permit Violates CWA and State Law.
Holland & Knight Law. Retrieved from https://www.hklaw.com/publications/Maryland–Appellate–
Court–County– Stormwater–Permit–Violates–CWA–and–State–Law–04–10–2015/. Maryland
Department of the Environment. (2015). Maryland's NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System (MS4) Permits. The Maryland Department of the Environment. Retrieved from
http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/water/storm
watermanagementprogram/pages/programs/waterprograms/sedimentandstormwat
er/storm_gen_permit.aspx. Maryland Department of the Environment v. Anacostia Riverkeeper. 222
Md. App. 153; 112 A.3d 979; 2015 Md. App. LEXIS 37; 45 ELR 20077. Retrieved from
www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic. Petersen, Rafe. (2015). Montgomery County, Md., must
meet MS4 permit obligations despite rulings. Holland & Knight Law. Retrieved from
http://www.lexology.com/ library/detail.aspx?g=886cb016–eb66–4e0e–a136–6eaacd2ac0d8.
Wechsler, Benjamin S. (2015). Recent Developments in Maryland Water Permitting Law. Maryland
State Bar Association, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.msba.org
/Bar_Bulletin/2015/09__September/FOCUS__Recent_Developments_in_Marylan

How Does It Violate The Defendant's Due Process
FACTS: Two men Brady and Boblit were were found guilty of murder in the first degree. The two
men were sentenced to death. Both of the men received separate trials. After the trial Brady
confessed to planning and commission of the crime, but denied personally committing the murder.
Brady's attorney had requested access to the police statement, but one statement was not present to
the court. The statement of Boblit, that he confessed, personally committing the murder himself. The
defense requested an appeal and the court of Maryland agreed, and the trial of withholding of
evidence proceeded, the court ruled that this was a violation of due process, and remanded the case,
and new proceedings commenced.
ISSUE: The withholding of evidence in the favor of the defense, does it violate the defendant's due
process? Due to the limitations of the new proceedings, with only sentencing involved, did this only
violate the rights of due process to the defendant? ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
No, the limitations to the new proceedings, with punishment only, not the defendant's underlying
guilt, does not violate the due process

Brady Vs. Maryland Case
Brady Vs Maryland
Brady vs. Maryland was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the prosecution had
withheld from the criminal defendant certain evidence. The defendant faced his conviction, arguing
it had been contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
Maryland prosecuted Brady and a companion, Boblit, for murder. Brady admitted being involved in
the murder, but claimed Boblit had done the actual killing. The prosecution had withheld a written
statement by Boblit admitting that he had committed the act of killing by himself. The Maryland
Court of Appeals had confirmed the conviction and remanded the case for a retrial only on the
question of punishment. The Supreme Court held that withholding exculpatory evidence violates
due process "where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment"; and the court
determined that under Maryland state law the withheld evidence couldn't have exculpated the
defendant but was material to the level of punishment he would be given. Hence the Maryland Court
of Appeals ' ruling was confirmed. A defendant 's request for "Brady disclosure" refers to the
holding of the Brady case, and the various state and federal cases that interpret its obligation that the
prosecution discloses material exculpatory evidence to the defense. Exculpatory evidence is a
reasonable probability that his conviction or sentence would have been different had these materials
been disclosed.

West Virginia's Judicial System: A Case Study
Introduction Throughout the United States, there exists Federal and state laws that seek to seek to
control given categories of over the counter drugs (Paul–Emile, 2010). The outcome of such efforts
is the formulation of drug control policies that despite their goodwill and intention end up creating
new sets of challenges for the producers, distributors, and consumers of the drugs (Lessenger &
Feinberg, 2015). Like many other states, the state of West Virginia has moved to put in place
legislations that control the use of over the counter medicine. As such in line with the "Combat
Methamphetamine Epidemic" passed by the U.S Congress and enacted on 2006, the state of West
Virginia (WV) also enacted a related policy passed in the 2012 regular ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The state has approximately 8.2 million inhabitants and has Richmond as its capital city. Like many
other states, the state operates based on Virginia's Constitution (West Virginia Legislature, 2015).
The state of Virginia consists of 95 counties and has a judicial system. The judicial system consists
of "Supreme Court of Virginia, the Court of Appeals of Virginia, circuit courts in thirty–one judicial
circuits, general district, and juvenile and domestic relations district courts in thirty–two districts,
and magistrates in offices in thirty–two districts" (Virginia's Judicial System, 2009). Virginia has
always held elections of its governors a year after the election of the government. History indicates
that in Virginia the presidential party that wins the election ends up losing the gubernatorial
campaign. Currently the practice of leadership and political culture in Virginia draws from early
aristocratic tendencies. The state of Maryland on the other hand is smaller than Virginia is and has
approximately 5.9 million inhabitants with Annapolis standing out as the State Capital. Governance
in the state of Maryland follows the Maryland Constitution with administrative responsibility
belonging to the three arms of government that include the executive, legislative, and the judiciary.
The executive branch of the government consists of the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney
general, the comptroller, and the treasurer. The General Assembly represents the legislative branch
while judicial branch consists of the Court of Appeals, Court of Special Appeals, Circuit Courts, and
district courts. In both Virginia and Maryland, elections define citizen initiatives where citizens use
the ballot as a platform for change steered by objective campaigns agendas. Referendums also
actualize citizen initiatives with citizens in Maryland using a referendum as a means of reverting
unpopular laws passed by the

The Discovery Dispute And Its Effect On The Status As A...
For the reasons stated in Part II(A), supra, Avpro enters this discovery dispute with a distinct
advantage due to its status as a non–party. Independent of its status as a non–party, the electronic
discovery that 50NL seeks from Avpro would otherwise be undiscoverable because Avpro's need for
the discovery does not outweigh the burden and cost of locating, retrieving, and producing the
information. Md. Rule 2–402(b)(2). Moreover, the fact that 50NL's need for the requested discovery
is de minimis, the burden and costs imposed on Avpro are exorbitant, all in conjunction with the fact
that Avpro is a non–party to the underlying litigation, all indicate that this Court should deny 50NL's
motion to compel.
Unfortunately, while Md. Rule ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Rule 2–402(b) as cited in the committee's meeting minutes on October 12, 2006. Maryland Court of
Appeals Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, October 13, 2006 Meeting
Minutes *69, available at http://mdlaw.cloudapp.net/awweb/main.jsp?
flag=browse&smd=1&awdid=3. As such, Respondents respectfully submit that this Court should
look to the factors articulated in Zubulake to inform its understanding of the terms "undue burden,"
"undue cost." and "need for discovery" as those terms are used in Md. Rule 2–402(b)(2). In the
instant matter, virtually all of the Zubulake factors weigh in favor of denying 50NL's motion to
compel, and those that do not, certainly do not weigh in favor of granting the motion. First, both of
the respective requests ask for all written communications between Greg Noval and Avpro spanning
a period of nine months. Granted, the requests purport to limit its scope to communications
involving aircraft. Lest we not forget, however, that Avpro is an aircraft broker, and as such, this
purported limitation rings hollow. Indeed, perhaps every incoming or outgoing communication sent
from or received by Avpro relates to an aircraft in some way or another. As such, the incredibly
broad scope of the discovery request at issue militates in favor of denying 50NL's motion to compel.
Moreover, in this matter, not only is all the information that Avpro seeks readily

Co-Owners And Hannon Case Study
Assuming, arguendo, that there was a special relationship between the Co–Owners and Hannon–
there was not–Byrne fails to plead facts sufficient to show that the Co–Owners Owed Byrne a duty.
Critically, the presence of a special relationship is merely a necessary, and not a sufficient, condition
required to demonstrate the presence of a legally cognizable duty. In addition to a special
relationship, Byrne must also plead facts sufficient to demonstrate that the probability of potential
harm and the gravity of potential harm outweigh the burdens that would be required to reduce the
risk of harm. Warr, 433 Md. at 182 (quoting Ashburn, 306 Md. at 627). Maryland authorities
consistently demonstrate that the necessary showing of foreseeability of harm required to make a
prima facie showing that one is liable for the criminal activities of another is exceedingly high. For
example, in Scott, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland certified the question
of whether a landlord owes a duty to protect tenants from criminal activities in the common areas of
an apartment complex to the Court of Appeals. Scott, 278 Md. at 161–62. In that case, a Plaintiff
was murdered in an ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
See Id. at 167 (citing Kline, 439 F.2d at 477). Indeed, the extent to which Maryland authorities
narrowly construe duties to prevent superseding criminal activities is further embodied in
Maryland's notorious rejection of dram shop liability theories. See Warr, 433 Md. at 243 (Maryland
refuses to impose liability on bar owners for the superseding criminal actions of drunk drivers
notwithstanding that thirty–four other states hold to the contrary (J. Adkins

Debt Vs Decedent
"Debts due by the decedent" cannot constitute debts that have accrued after the decedent has passed
away. First, this conclusion is reached by a textual, plain–meaning, reading of the bond. Indeed, at
the time of the decedent's death, the decedent ceases to exist, and all that remains is the decedent's
estate. As such, any debts that arise after the decedent's death are not "debts due by the decedent,"
but they are debts incurred by the decedent's estate. This is so notwithstanding the fact that the State
of Maryland is within the class of entities that that a nominal bond secures. Stated differently,
although the nominal bond secures the decedent's debts to the State, the bond does not secure debts
to the state that accrewed after the decedent's ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In support, the State will rely on the text of the bond which provides that the surety is "obligated to
the State of Maryland." Moreover, the State will note that in Williamson, two other debts–one for
the decedent's credit card, and another for unpaid hospital bills–were properly recoverable against
the bond. Id. at 154. These distinctions are immaterial. The issue in this matter is not to whom
particular debts are owed, but rather, when the debts accrued. Although Williamson, is mandatory
authority for the resolution of this issue, the Court of Appeal's holding in that case embodies a
border concept of the workings of suretyship law that require this outcome.
3. Principles of Suretyship Require That Erie Cannot Be Liable for The State's Claim.
Not only does Williamson, expressly provide that debts incurred after a decedent's death cannot be
secured by a nominal personal representative's bond, but elementary principles of suretyship
prohibit a principal obligor and a creditor from unilaterally increasing a surety's exposure to liability
on a bond. Indeed:
[A] change in the agreement by the principal and the obligee, without notice or consent by the
surety, when it materially changes the risk, entitles the surety to discharge, acknowledging that,
when it is applicable, there is ample authority to support it. See Restatement (Third) of Suretyship &
Guaranty (1995) § 41, which, as pertinent,

Supreme Court Cases: Brady V. Maryland
Prosecutors play a critical role in determining a defendant's guilt. Despite this role, the powers
ascribed to prosecutors have long been debated. In the 1960's and 1970's the United States Supreme
Court sought to clarify the powers ascribed to prosecutors in three cases. These cases included:
Brady v. Maryland 373 U.S. 83, Giglio v. United States 405 U.S. 150, and the United States v.
Agurs, 427 U.S. 97. Although the issue explored by the Supreme Court differed in each of these
cases, the verdict in each case helped to clarify whether or not prosecutors in the United States had
the right to suppress evidence.
Brady v. Maryland In Brady v. Maryland, the United States Supreme Court examined whether or not
the prosecutors had the right to suppress evidence that may have helped the defendant. Specifically,
two defendants, Boblit and Brady were charged with murder. Both defendants had separate trials.
The first defendant to stand trial was Boblit, who admitted his guilt. In Brady's trial, ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
Agurs was heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1976. This case differed from others as it
questioned whether or not prosecutors had to disclose the victim's previous criminal history. This
case involved a woman named Swells who was murdered with a knife by Agurs. During the trial,
Agurs's defense learned that Swells had a criminal history and mentioned for a new trial. The
defense for Agru further believed that releasing Ms. Swell's criminal history may have supported
their argument that Mr. Agurs acted in self–defense. However, the district court denied this request.
The case then went to the appeals court, which determined that not releasing Ms. Swell's previous
criminal history was an act of suppressing evidence (material) that may influence the jury. Despite
this ruling, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the prosecutor in the district court was
correct and that prosecutors did not have a duty to release a victim's previous criminal

Summary Of Mcculloch Vs. Maryland Case
McCulloch v. Maryland case goes back to the 1800s when the State of Maryland, being unhappy
with the rising power of the Bank of the United States, enacted a statute imposing a tax on all banks
operating in Maryland not chartered by the state. The State of Maryland sued James McCulloch, the
cashier of the bank of the Baltimore branch, for issuing bank notes without obeying to the state's law
and for failing to pay the taxes to the state. The main issues that were raised during the case were:
whether or not the Congress had the power to create a bank under the Constitution and whether or
not the State of Maryland had the power to impose taxes on a federal bank which was created with
authorized powers under the Constitution. The case was ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The first question raised was about whether or not the Congress had the power to create the bank.
The answer was yes, because Congress had the power under the Constitution to incorporate a bank
under the Article I Section 8 with the Necessary and Proper Clause which in other words means
constitutional. Hence, the bank was constitutional. Second question that was raised during the
decision–making was about whether or not the State of Maryland had the power of taxing the bank.
The bank is a federal institution created by the Federal Government. According to John Marshall,
sovereignty is separated between federal and state governments, but when the state is trying to gain
control over the national power the state is trying to take over the supreme sovereignty; under any
circumstances the national sovereignty should be supreme. Federal Government represents the
people of the United States as a whole; meanwhile the state represents only the people of the state.
Marshall also noted that the Government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme
within its sphere of action, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the
supreme law of the land. Marshall's words were: " The power of establishing a corporation is not a
distinct sovereign power or end of government, but only the means of

A Case For The Foreclosure Proceeding
This case arises out of a foreclosure proceeding initiated in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City by
substitute trustees Thomas P. Dore, Mark S. Devan, Gerard F. Miles, Jr., Shannon Menapace, and
Erin Gloth (collectively, the "Substitute Trustees"), appellees. In the foreclosure proceedings, the
Substitute Trustees filed an order to docket a foreclosure with respect to real property located at
3517 Woodstock Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland 21213 ("the Property") owned by mortgagor Celeste
Wenegieme ("Wenegieme"), appellant. Following the sale of Wenegieme's property and the
ratification of that sale, the purchaser of the property, Wells Fargo Bank, M.A. ("Wells Fargo"), filed
a motion for judgment awarding possession of the property. The circuit court granted Well's Fargo's
motion and this timely appeal followed. On appeal, Wenegieme challenges the sale of the property.
Indeed, Wenegieme presents one question for our review, which we have rephrased as follows:
Whether the circuit court erred in granting Wells Fargo's motion for judgment awarding possession.
For the reasons set forth herein, we shall affirm the judgments of the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS In June of 2008, Wenegieme purchased the Property in exchange for
a note and a Deed of Trust made to the order of Advisors Mortgage Group, LLC, in the amount of
$216,956 plus interest. The note was subsequently transferred to Wells Fargo. In February of 2012,
the parties agreed to modify

Summary: Devbrow V. Gallegos
1. United States v. Fluker said, "Only a prima facie showing of genuineness is required; the task of
deciding the evidence's true authenticity and probative value is left to the jury." This case shows that
the failure to authenticate an email can lead to an exclusion of important evidence. Devbrow v.
Gallegos was a civil rights suit by a prisoner against prison guard. The prisoner said he was unable
to access to the courts after his legal papers were destroyed by the guard. Devbrow submitted an
email sent by Gallegos into evidence that allegedly proved the intent and the destruction of his
property. The court struck down the email because Devbrow did not authenticate it. He failed to
prove that either he or someone else saw Gallegos actually

The State V. Rusk
In the State v. Rusk, Defendant Rusk was found guilty by a jury of second–degree rape, however,
there was no evidence of resistance. The question for the Court was whether there was sufficient
evidence of apprehension on the part of the alleged victim such that the jury could find Defendant
guilty.
I will give the facts, issues,and court holdings for the case.
Facts
On the night in question,the victim and the defendant met at a bar. When the victim was ready to
leave, the defendant ask for a ride. The victim gave him a ride home,but stopped at the curve and
she did not cut off the ignition. The defendant ask the victim up to his apartment, but she
refused.The defendant took the victim 's keys then ask if she would come up. She decide to go up to
the apartment, and then the defendant got in bed. While in bed, the defendant ask the victim to get
in, then he proceeded to pull her in. He pulled off her blouse and she pulled of her pants because the
defendant ask. Later, the defendant put his hands around the victim throat, and lightly choked her.
The victim ask the defendant would he let her go if she did what he wanted, so he said yes . The
victim proceed to go down on the victim and perform oral sex, and then they had sexual intercourse.
(casebriefs,2015)
" Sexual intercourse is defined as sexual contact between individuals involving penetration,
especially the insertion of a man 's erect penis into a woman 's vagina, typically culminating in
orgasm and the ejaculation of

Assault in the First Degree
Assault in the first degree Assault is a physical attack on someone without the person's consent. In
most cases, assault is a result of a fight or other dispute that rise to some level of violence. In a
mutual fight, the first person to report to the police is usually not charged, and in most cases, the
person who did not start the fight is usually charged in Maryland. Assault is a serious case in
Maryland and it has a serious penalties, with that, one needs a experienced lawyer who can
challenge the evidence and argue that the case does not warrant the penalties so that the charge
amount can be reduce or the case might be dismissed. A person is guilty of assault if he or she
causes a serious physical damage on the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Later, the victim felt something was not right and began to take a walk away from them. But then,
Campbell called him back and asked him where he was going, he also said that Jordan and the
Juvenile has gone, but when the victim got back inside the car, he saw Jordan and the juvenile still
standing there. Campbell then drove far into Linkins Road before they had a stopover and Campbell
again got out of the car. According to the report, when Campbell and the victim got out of the car,
Campbell grabbed the victim by the neck and stabbed him, the victim tried running but Jordan and
the juvenile caught him and Campbell stabbed him again while the others beat him up. The victim
stumble and they thought he is dead according to the report. The victim's face was fractured and had
stabbed wounds. They stole some of the victim's properties and went away with it. The men were
caught and were charged with first degree murder, theft, robbery and assault.(SoMdNews). The
criminal justice system has three major components: the police, courts, and corrections. Within the
three major components, there are criminal justice agencies that make sure the system work. The
step goes as follows; Firstly, the crime will be considered assault by criminal laws. Secondly, the
suspect will be arrested by the police. The police investigate crime and apprehend suspects; the
police can also restrict the freedom of persons by taking them into police custody.

Office Memo
WHAT IS AN OFFICE MEMO AND HOW DO I WRITE ONE List these headings in your memo.
Please do not forget to list the headings – Facts, Issue and Short Answer, Analysis, Counter–
Argument, Rebuttal, and Conclusion. The office memo combines your ability to explain the law
along with your ability to apply the law. In the Office Memo, you make a determination of the likely
outcome based upon your review of the law and the facts in a case. In the memo, you will write
about the facts in a client's case and the law pertaining to the client's case. Most importantly, you
will apply the law to the client's situation. Further, you will learn to anticipate what the opposing
side's position will be and how to address the issues raised by the opposing ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
An Example of a Law Memo and its Analysis The Memo | Analysis of the Memo | In Maryland, an
injured worker is not covered by workers' compensation if the worker is classified as a casual
employee. Two opinions from the Maryland Court of Appeals assist in understanding when a worker
will be classified as a casual employee. | Paragraph No. 1 tells the reader that the topic is casual
employee status in the context of workers' compensation law. It also tells the reader that Maryland
case law will be the authority used as the basis for the memo. Sentence 1 ends with the term casual
employee and sentence 2 repeats this term. This is a transition device to establish coherence between
the sentences. | The Maryland Workers Compensation Act allows only regular employees to recover
benefits; casual employees are specifically excepted. Md. Ann. Code art. 101, sec. 21(c)(4) (Repl.
Vol. 1985). The statute does not define casual employee. Maryland appellate courts have recognized
factors that indicate when a worker is casual as opposed to regular. Casual employees generally
perform work that is not related to the employer's business nor in furtherance of that business.
Leonard v. Fantasy Imports, Inc 504 A.2d 660, 664 ( Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1986) Additionally, a
casual employee may work temporarily for a short time. Leonard at 665. Finally, unlike a regular
employee, a casual employee may have no expectation that there will be further work

State vs Constitutional Decisions
Individual rights are a very crucial part of our United States constitution, because whether these
rights are being provided towards a criminal defendant or a victim the goal of our national
government is to provide the same level of rights adequately to all its citizens. From the time in
which the new judicial federalism began up until now, these rights have been more and more in
debate case after case both in federal and state courts. A good example to this fact is a comparison
between 3 different cases that pertain to decisions from both state and federal court, these cases are
Maryland v Craig, Pennsylvania v Ludwig, and Ohio v Self. These cases deal with the defendant's
right to confront witnesses when the witness is a child who is ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Craig then objected to the motion basing it on the confrontation clause but then the trial court
rejected her, in which then the trial court allowed children to testify under statute, then Craig was
convicted of all counts. Maryland court of last resort reversed and remanded for a new trial by
rejecting Craig's contention, but concluding that the 6th amendment's confrontation clause
guarantees face–to–face confrontation. For the statute to be invoked in the first place the defendant
must have had a face–to–face with it's accusers, and also that the state's showing of expert testimony
was insufficient in order to comply with regulations required in Coy v Iowa (1988), which was a
similar case to this one but the main difference was that there was a curtain to conceal the child
victim instead of a one–way closed circuit camera, therefore the defendant's constitutional rights
were violated by not being provided that right. The case was then taken by Craig to the U.S.
Supreme court. The constitutional question the U.S. Supreme court is addressing was whether the
one–way closed–circuit testimony of a child witness who is alleged to be a victim of child abuse
violates the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment. Since the court determined that closed–
circuit questioning met the fundamental purposes of the clause, (which in general are the right to
personally examine the witness

Brown Vs. Board Of Education: Case Study
Chris Del Valle October.23.2014 Supreme Court Paper D–Block Brown vs. Board of Education The
Declaration of Independence stated that "all men are created equal." But before the civil war,
America didn't seem to abide by this since there was slavery. In 1865 slavery ended, and the 13th
Amendment was created. Then in 1868 the fourteenth amendment was created, which made the
rights of released slaves stronger. It says that nobody will have their right to "due process of law",
and "equal protection of the law" taken away. Later in 1870, the 15th amendment was passed stating
that no state can prohibit someone from voting due to race. As you can see from the amendments,
African Americans and other minorities were treated differently from whites. As whites were
proclaimed to be superior than them. This was very true in the South. The Jim Crow laws were laws
that prohibited blacks from doing things like not using the same public facilities, busses, and even
attending the same schools. Many people believed that these laws were unjust. But it wasn't until the
1890's until they were changed in court. Homer Plessy wouldn't give up his seat on a train to a white
man in New ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Painter (1950), Inspired by the victory in the Gaines' case the NAACP became motivated, and
continued to attack legally sanctioned racial discrimination in higher education. During 1946,
Heman Sweat was an African American who applied to the University of Texas' white law school.
The state was hoping they didn't have to admit Sweat to the white law school if there was already a
black law school on campus. The University set up a black law school on campus very quickly.
Heman argued that the black law school wasn't as good as the white law school academically. The
case reached supreme court, and the court agreed with Sweat. The reason being that the black law
school was separate but not equal. Just like the Murray case. The court was then able to admit Sweat
to the University's law

Patricia Mcdonough Case Study
On March 5, 1976, Woman named Patricia McDonough was robbed by Michael Lee Smith in
Baltimore, Maryland. After the robbery McDonough provided the description of the robber and his
car information to the police station. In a period of few days, McDonough began receiving
intimidating phone calls from the robber to stop accusing him. The police observed Smith's car in
McDonough neighborhood and identified the car owner by using the car plate number. To confirm
the robber, police requested the telecom company to record the numbers dialed from Smith's home
by a pen register. Subsequently, the pen register recorded dialed call numbers from Smith's to
McDonough's home. The police didn't obtain court warrant when they record calls. However, police

The Case Of Muriel Peters V. Early Healthcare Giver Inc.
From looking at the case decisions of similar circumstances made by the court for like dispute can
be reasonably unclear, whether or whether not the evidence supports the judgment. After analyzing
the case of Muriel Peters v. Early Healthcare Giver Inc. (EHCG), related perceptive sides may be
pointed out based on the reader's viewpoint. In my opinion, I agree with the Court of Appeals of
Maryland's decision to overturn the decision made by Circuit Court. Early Healthcare Giver's
counsel tried to elaborate that the company was working under a Federal program, which Medicaid
would cover the cost of payment. This laments multiple errors in the circuit court decision to preside
with the Defendant Early Healthcare Giver for several reasons. The first reason is that the circuit
court agreed with the Defendant on the basis that federal law preempt state law, even though that is
true it is the wrong application of the law in this case. As in this matter, state laws preempt federal
agency regulations including administrative agency laws as it was in this case (4). The second is that
the circuit court interpreted it has had federal question. According to the textbook, a federal question
arises when a plaintiff's cause of action is based, at least in part, on the U.S. Constitution, a treaty, or
a federal law (33). The court of appeals stated that Peter's work fell under the Fair Labor Standards
Act's (FLSA) "companionship services" exemption does not apply in this matter. So the

Case Brief Essay Example

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Tanya Williams

More from Tanya Williams (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Case Brief Essay Example